Mr. Loughner's attorneys contend that the danger-to-others argument is a ploy to avoid a more stringent Supreme Court requirement that applies when the government wants to forcibly medicate a defendant to restore him to mental competency to stand trial. In May, Mr. Loughner was declared not competent by federal district Judge Larry Burns, who is presiding over the Loughner case. Administering drugs to return a defendant to competence requires a court hearing....

[The court noted] that prison officials have been able to keep Mr. Loughner in custody for over six months since the shootings "without injury to anyone."

Of course Loughner wishes no bodily "harm" upon himself. He's a selfish little prick gaming the system, aided and abetted by competent attorneys only interested in advancing their own careers in criminal law. Who's paying for those attorneys by the way?

Prisons can't function w/o powerful drugs. I worked a stint @ Leavenworth as a hack back in the 70's. One of my first days on the job I saw an inmate just walking slowly almost trance like. A veteran officer came up to me and said, "That's the thorazine shuffle." I saw a lot of shufflers.

If AZ has the "guilty but mentally ill" law on the books why not just pass GO and go direct to the psych facility for the rest of his life? Now in states that don't have this standard, I completely understand and agree with the defense bar that opines that it is wrong for the state to forcibly medicate pre-trial if a mentally ill defense is contemplated as otherwise at trial the jury will be viewing a seemingly "normal" defendant "normal" only because they are medicated, rather than the sort of person they were when they committed the crime. The Yates trial in Texas was a perfect example of this, as a fully medicated Yates at trial was a far different creature than the undoubtedly insane Yates who murdered her children by drowning them in the bathtub on command of the voices in her head.

That's not good enough. He needs to be executed. And if his attorneys are going to try to defend him by claiming that he's not competent to stand trial, then the State has every right to make him competent, if that is within its capabilities.

"Incompetent" people don't have the right to decide what happens to themselves. They certainly don't have that "right" when their "incompetence" is the only thing keeping them out of jail / off death row.

sorry gregq, I don't see that happening. I am agnostic on the death penalty -- having it as an option did not prevent this crime, though there are times when I thin it is appropriate (including, contra to the Supreme Court, in certain child rape situations.) but to get this guy executed you really have to prove that he's not insane. There's enough evidence that this guy is descending into paranoid schizophrenia (it's not a disease where one day you're fine, the next day you're loony tunes.) Why spend the time, effort and money to execute him rather than accepting a life without parole deal, and putting those resources to prosecuting other crimes.

I do think he had enough sanity left that he knew right from wrong, but if he's going to be locked up for life any way, why spend millions (and it will be millions) on a crap shoot?

I am agnostic on the death penalty -- having it as an option did not prevent this crime

I've never seen the death penalty as a deterrent to future crime. I see it as society ridding itself of it's most heinous members so that the rest of us don't have to pony up for the rest of their ill-begotten lives.

It would have been better for society if the clearly increasingly crazy Jared Loughners of the world were forcibly medicated and housed by the state before they actually kill a bunch of people.

But noooooooooo, the State saw to it that lunacy was no reason not to be free to be homeless and violent.

To prevent the horror of institutionalization, jails and streets were turned into the de facto asylums for the mentally ill. The violent among them are ignored until that cause considerable havoc or are deadly.

One of my first days on the job I saw an inmate just walking slowly almost trance like. A veteran officer came up to me and said, "That's the thorazine shuffle." I saw a lot of shufflers.

Thorazine was the first drug to work on psychotics but it did have significant side effects that resembled Parkinson's Disease. In fact, those side effects led to an understanding of the cause of Parkinson's.

The new drugs have far fewer side effects and are the choice of psychiatrists for the psychotic. They are expensive and there is concern that Obamacare rules may force the use of cheaper, older drugs.

One reason the defense may not want him treated is that he may start looking sane enough to be convicted. It is a disservice to him to withhold the drugs but his parents also abetted his avoidance of treatment before the shooting.

Prisons are full of psychotics who would be far better off in state mental hospitals but the ACLU and movies like "one Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" took away that option.

Thorazine is used when a psychotic patient goes wild. And, they have the strength of ten men. And, it takes all the orderlies to hold this person down. While they're thrashing, the needle goes into the exposed ass cheek.

This is NOT done to make the patient docile. And, it just beats keeping them strapped inside a straight jacket all day.

But if the judges so choose?

You think the staff will allow itself to be endangered?

Of course, for any court appearance ... this lunatic can be let loose ... from restraints ... And, the judge will discover how far a psychotic can travel, unmedicated.

Heck, in the best of all worlds, he'll choke-hold one of his attorneys.

Carol Herman, You're incorrect regarding thorazine. The most common use is as long term oral medication and it most certainly does make patients/inmates docile. You can't charge @ a nurse or hack when you're doing "the shuffle."

I'd be all in favor of an approach of "6 of one, half-dozen of the other" -- that is, whether he's locked up for life by virtue of being unable to stand trial, or locked up for life upon conviction -- except that it seems to me that there are risks to him just sitting in the mental hospital. Not that he commits another crime, but that years from now, he decides to accept medication, and then his lawyer finds some loophole by which he's freed because too much time has passed to successfully convict him.

You would have to be crazy to want the medicine so i gather he is perfectly sane. It is the Catch 22 logic that must be employed. He has to be executed because if he said he wanted to be he would be crazy. But since he has indicated he is sane he must be executed.